An upgrade you can use

I’m not the kind of person to rush to get the newest Iphone even if my plan makes me eligible for a cheap upgrade, but I would make an exception for this:

Apple’s iOS 26 will allow users to filter out texts from unknown senders.

That could be a big financial problem for campaigns that rely on texts for donations.

Apple’s new spam text filtering feature could end up being a multimillion-dollar headache for political campaigns.

iOS 26 includes a new feature that allows users to filter text messages from unrecognized numbers into an “Unknown Senders” folder without sending a notification. Users can then go to that filter and hit “Mark as Known” or delete the message.

In a memo seen by BI and first reported by Punchbowl News, the official campaign committee in charge of electing GOP senators warned that the new feature could lead to a steep drop in revenue.

“That change has profound implications for our ability to fundraise, mobilize voters, and run digital campaigns,” reads a July 24 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC.

That’s what you call a win-win!

Of course, this will impact the fundraising of both parties if it works. A lot of people will tell you that it’s incredibly annoying but necessary because it works. At least on the Democratic side, though, it “works” only for the spammers themselves:

The digital deluge is a familiar annoyance for anyone on a Democratic fundraising list. It’s a relentless cacophony of bizarre texts and emails, each one more urgent than the last, promising that your immediate $15 donation is the only thing standing between democracy and the abyss.

The main rationale offered for this fundraising frenzy is that it’s a necessary evil—that the tactics, while unpleasant, are brutally effective at raising the money needed to win. But an analysis of the official FEC filings tells a very different story. The fundraising model is not a brutally effective tool for the party; it is a financial vortex that consumes the vast majority of every dollar it raises.

We all have that one obscure skill we’ve inadvertently maxed out. Mine happens to be navigating the labyrinth of campaign finance data. So, after documenting the spam tactics in a previous article, I told myself I’d just take a quick look to see who was behind them and where the money was going.

That “quick look” immediately pulled me in. The illusion of a sprawling grassroots movement, with its dozens of different PAC names, quickly gave way to a much simpler and more alarming reality. It only required pulling on a single thread—tracing who a few of the most aggressive PACs were paying—to watch their entire manufactured world unravel. What emerged was not a diverse network of activists, but a concentrated ecosystem built to serve the firm at its center: Mothership Strategies.

[…]

After subtracting these massive operational costs—the payments to Mothership, the fees for texting services, the cost of digital ads and list rentals—the final sum delivered to candidates and committees is vanishingly small. My analysis of the network’s FEC disbursements reveals that, at most, $11 million of the $678 million raised from individuals has made its way to candidates, campaigns, or the national party committees.

But here’s the number that should end all debate:

This represents a fundraising efficiency rate of just 1.6 percent.

Here’s what that number means: for every dollar a grandmother in Iowa donates believing she’s saving democracy, 98 cents goes to consultants and operational costs. Just pennies reach actual campaigns.

Of course, the party can and should just stop doing fundraising that alienates countless voters while not actually raising any more without any technological change.